New coolant was the right prescription for a medical
manufacturer's sump woes; Biostable metalworking fluid improved a
shop's environmental outcome.
Coolant deterioration was leaving a sour taste in the mouths of the
managers of a medical manufacturer, as well as sour coolant in the
storage tanks. The company went looking for a different fluid
prescription.
Manufacturers of medical device components adhere to strict
guidelines mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the
International Standards Organization, and other organizations. Often,
these standards limit the actions plant managers can take to change
manufacturing procedures if operations are not running efficiently.
When Tier ONE LLC, Newtown, CT, began experiencing coolant issues
leading to increased off-site disposal, the company had to find a
suitable method for decreasing coolant-related costs.
The company machines and assembles parts for clinical analyzers,
centrifuges, stomach suturing devices, ultrasonic surgical devices, and
other medical equipment parts using stainless steel, titanium, and
aluminum. To machine these materials cost-effectively, Tier ONE's
tools need to be finetuned to promote long life.
Tier ONE plant managers noticed the coolant they were using during
machining was souring in the coolant tanks, increasing costly waste
removal. After researching options that would meet medical manufacturing
standards, the company found a coolant that saved them $21,000 annually
in waste removal costs.
Coolant Quandaries
When Tier ONE's tanks began developing build-up, the company
tried handling problems the way it had always handled them.
"We cleaned and scraped the tanks and chip conveyors when the
coolant systems were changed," Don Stankus, Tier ONE's
director of manufacturing and facilities, said.
That led to more frequent waste removal, the purchase of
replacement coolant, and extra labor.
The company tried to evaporate water-based coolants, but the
process couldn't keep up with the demand for disposal. The disposal
of a 1,500-gal waste tank every six weeks cost $2,500 each time.
"We worked with our supplier and tried to get their help
managing the coolant, but they said Tier ONE's use of way oil and
other metalworking fluids was its own responsibility," Stankus
said. "When tramp oil wasn't separating properly from the
coolant, they told us to try aerators, skimmers, and more
fungicides."
Taking the supplier's advice, Stankus and his team began
adding a fungicide to the coolant tanks. In particular, the fungicide
needed to be used monthly on a number of the larger milling machines.
But, in order to mix the fungicide properly, machines had to be shut
down for up to 48 hours before flushing and recharging.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
As if the lost productivity wasn't enough, Tier ONE still
discovered a build-up on the inside of machines. The shop continued to
have a distinctive odor, especially after the weekends when the machines
sat idle.
"At the time, we thought all coolants had this issue and this
was just a cost of doing business," Stankus said.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Searching for another alternative, the company team researched
coolant options. The team interviewed coolant suppliers and explained
the shop's issues. After preliminary research, they put coolants
from two suppliers on trial for six months. They tested machines that
had the heaviest coolant use and experienced the most coolant-related
problems.
"We went slowly, not knowing the impact that changing coolants
would have on the machines, parts, or tool life," Stankus said.
He and his team monitored coolant percentages, coolant life, and
reaction to the machine and tools. After two months, the first coolant
developed issues that concerned Tier ONE: It was flushing lubrication
properties from the machine, so the tools were developing rust and
locking in place.
Cool Runnings
The second coolant, Hocut 795-B, a biostable coolant from Houghton
International, Valley Forge, PA, met with success. Hocut's
lubricity was high enough to keep the machines running smoothly without
the problems of the other coolant being tried.
During the trial period, a Houghton rep made frequent visits to the
company to perform chemical sampling of the coolants. After the
changeover, he continued to visit monthly to check for problems and
monitor some of the machines, Stankus said.
Although the new coolant cost about the same as the product
previous used, the cost savings with the new coolant offered less
frequent waste removal, longer coolant life, elimination of fungicides,
and improved manpower efficiency.
Because the biostable coolant stayed fresh during use, Tier ONE did
not have to regenerate coolant tanks each month. In fact, some of the
tanks have lasted more than a year before the plant has had to change
them. This has led to a cost savings of about $21,000 a year in waste
removal.
Due to the replacement coolant's efficiency, the company only
needs to run its machines at six to 12 percent coolant. Because of its
biostable properties, the company saved an additional $2,000 it was
spending on fungicide additives to prevent build-up.
The shop also saw labor cost savings for coolant maintenance.
Coolant changes used to require a full-time employee, but because fewer
cleanouts occur, the employee can devote time to other tasks.
Houghton International
Visit www.rsleads.com/808mn-205 for more information
COPYRIGHT 2008 Nelson
Publishing Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.